The Conflicting Voices in Tony Harrison's Poetry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vol 4. No.4 December 2009 Journal of Cambridge Studies 103 View metadata,The citation Conflicting and similar papers Voices at core.ac.uk in Tony Harrison’s Poetry brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo Xiaodong LIANG ∗ Henan Normal University Abstract: Tony Harrison is one of the representatives of the contemporary public poets whose poetry seems to be a language arena in which different narrative voices from different social milieus are imposed upon each other; whose different utterances ideologically orientated collide with each other at every nuance of the semantic level, and whose poetry features as double-voiced discourse. Due to this conspicuous feature, this thesis focuses its attention on the opposite voices in Harrison’s poetry, namely the voices of “Them” and “[uz]”, of the silent and the eloquent, and of his own forked tongue in order to work out the ideological meanings embedded in each discourse, to trace his split self in the conflicts between his education and his origin. Key Words: Tony Harrison’s poetry, conflicting voices, dialogic discourses, split self ∗ Liang Xiaodong is Professor of English Language and Literature at Faculty of International Studies of Henan Normal University. She was a visiting scholar of English Faculty, Cambridge University in 2001. She is particularly interested in Contemporary British and American poetry and fiction and has published many articles on them. Recently, she is working on the Contemporary British poetry, and Tony Harrison Studies is one of the projects. Her email address is [email protected] . Journal of Cambridge Studies 104 Introduction In talking about the major concerns of the contemporary British poetry, Neil Roberts has noticed that “class has continued to be a ground of contention in contemporary English poetry, and the most significant protagonist has been Tony Harrison.1 Indeed, Harrison is one of the representatives of public poets and “a tough-minded class warrior”, 2 fighting against discourse hegemony and oppression through his verbal weapons. His poems seem to be a language arena in which different voices speaking from different social milieus are imposed upon each other; in which different utterances ideologically orientated collide with each other at every nuance of the semantic level. Hence his poems are dialogic with several pairs of conflicting voices, which can be regarded as skaz defined by Bakhtin, the double-voiced discourse. Due to these conspicuous features, this thesis focuses its attention on his different voices, namely, the voices of “Them” and “[uz]”, the voices of the silent and the eloquent, and the voices of a forked tongue of his own in order to work out the ideological implications hidden in each discourse, and to trace his split self in the conflicts between his education and his origin. Them and [uz] A close reading finds that Harrison’s poems are embedded with skaz, one kind of "double-voiced utterance" in which two distinct voices - the author's speech and another's speech - are oriented toward one another within the same level of conceptual authority3.This double-voiced utterance has first been brought to the fore in his “School of Eloquence”, in which a working-class boy retraces his school days at the Grammar School in Leeds, recalling his own accent being strictly corrected and ruthlessly mocked by his teacher. He cannot pronounce the word “us” in RP, but clutching to his mother tongue as [uz]. Therefore, in the poem “Them and [uz]” arises two conflicting voices, the authoritative “Them” and the dominated but resisting “[uz]”. “Their” authoritative voice sounds anxious, responsible and scornful for the teacher shoulderes the responsibilities to cultivate the boy into civilized eloquent elite, and to remove his “barbarian” accent. Thus in the poem, we can hear the criticizing voice of the teacher first: 4 words only of mi ’art aches and… ‘Mine’s broken, you barbarian, T.W!’ He was nicely spoken. ‘Can’t have our glorious heritage done to death!’ I played the drunken Porter in Macbeth. ‘Poetry’s the speech of kings. You’re one of those Shakespeare gives comic bits to: prose! All poetry …you see ‘s been dubbed by [Λs] into RP … Your speech is in the hands of the Receivers.’ ‘We say [Λs] not [uz], T.W.! ’ That shut my trap. 1 Neil Roberts. Poetry and Class: Tony Harrison, Peter Reading, Ken Smith, Sean O’Brien in Neil Corcoran (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Twentieth Century English Poetry. Cambridge: CUP. 215-229, (2007) . 2 Luke Spencer. The Poetry of Tony Harrison. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. 95, (1994) . 3 See http://www.answers.com/topic/skaz, 2009. Vol 4. No.4 December 2009 Journal of Cambridge Studies 105 I doffed my flat a’s (as in ‘flat cap’) My mouth all stuffed with glottals, great Lumps to hawk up and spit out …E-nun-ci-ate! (122) The teacher coaches the boy the Received Pronunciation, the prestige standard accent matching poetry----“the speech of kings”, received by the “glorious heritage ”of literary and cultural traditions. However, the working-class boy is unable to pronounce even the simplest sound like [Λs] properly, and consequently he is rejected by “us”, the teacher on behalf, but allotted with a role of “a drunken man” who might be inarticulate in Macbeth. This poor boy suffers not only from the glottal pains but from the emotional offensiveness so far as the teacher contemptuously defines him as a “barbarian”, telling him off for having “our glorious heritage to death”. What is worse, the teacher seems to distain to call out his full name but “T.W.” which seems to reduce him to a sign. Hence, the teacher’s voice gestures his specific verbal manners of seeing and portraying the poor working class boy, potent with the stabilized ideological value judgments----to underestimate this lower class boy and his provincial dialect. And in this Skaz, the voice of the teacher is manipulating and dominating whereas the voice of the school boy is inarticulate and manipulated. The RP is enacted whilst the dialect is forced to be changed and corrected; the teacher is the speaking subject whereas the school boy is listening and “nicely” spoken of, accordingly he is the speaking object. Thereby, the boy’s narration has explored the class distinction and language oppression through the refraction of the teacher’s discourse. In this sense, the discourse in the above extraction has evident “double- voicedness”. However, where there is suppression, there is resistance. In the second part of this poem, the inarticulate boy comes to voice in his own accent, fighting for his own dialect as well as for his identity since “each social group---- each class, profession, generation, religion, region ----has its own dialect. Each dialect reflects and embodies a set of values and a sense of shared experience”.4 In this vein, the boy retorts his teacher as the follows: So right, yer buggers, then! We’ll occupy your lousy leasehold Poetry. I chewed up Litterer chewer and spat the bones Into the lap of dozing Daniel Jones, Dropped the initials I’d been harried as and used my name and own voice: [uz] [uz][uz], ended sentences with by, with, from and spoke the language that I spoke at home. RIP RP, RIP T.W. I’m Tony Harrison no longer you! You can tell the Receivers where to go (and no aspirate it) once you know Wordsworth’s matter/water are full rhymes, [uz]can be loving as well as funny. (123) 4Mikhail Bakhtin. in Ian Gregson. Contemporary Poetry and Postmodernism: Dialogue and Estrangement. London: Macmillan Press. 5, (1996). Journal of Cambridge Studies 106 The harassed school boy resorts to his own mother tongue, the vulgar and barbarian words “yer buggers”, to fight back against his bullying teacher, not meant the personal attacks but the public, directing to the bourgeoisies and their value judgments. The boy comes to be a speaking subject, cheering for his own mother tongue with the three-time repetitions of “[uz]”, which he shares with his own group, and which in his view, is both “loving and funny”; furthermore, he belittles poetry as “lousy leasehold” thing, and his capitalized “RIP RP” sound like a big hammer thudding, smashing the Received Pronunciation. In the long run, his “RIP T.W.” shows his resolution to rename and redefine himself, dropping the humiliating initials in order that he could use his full name to publish his poems rustic as those of Wordsworth’s with Cumbrian accent. The struggling voices for identity attune the same notes in another poem of “Heritage”. How you became a poet’s a mystery! Wherever did you get your talent from? I say: I had two uncles, Joe and Harry ----- One was a stammerer, the other dumb. (111) Here, we can hear two voices, one is questioning whilst the other is answering. They are socially distinct: the interrogative voice is loaded precisely with the point of view of bourgeoisies, questioning the identity of this poet. Its tone is full of suspicion and contempt. Its implication is “a man of such a breed like you can never be a poet”. “I had two uncles…/ one was stammer, the other dumb”, the answer seems to be digressive and irrelevant to the question; yet reading between the lines, we can see that they are the most eloquent answer to it. Metaphorically, the poet declares that his poetic talent is drawn from his inarticulate parents, whose silence and speechlessness have offered him the inner power to be a poet. As the poet later illustrated, … I had an inarticulate background, which gave me a deep hunger for all modes of articulation; I learned many languages, obsessively, and also threw myself into becoming a poet, which is for me a supreme and ceremonious mode of articulation.5 Indeed it is for the inarticulate that he has brought himself to be a poet, speaking in the form of poetry for his reticent parents and stammered uncles, and moreover for his own class.